Financial unrest makes case for Lisbon stronger

A text revived by a change of context.

European Voice

10/22/08, 5:00 PM CET

Updated 1/22/16, 1:12 PM CET

The ongoing financial crisis should change the focus of the debate in Ireland about the Lisbon treaty, from diffuse fears of further European integration to the cost of not being a member of the EU and of the eurozone.

If Irish citizens are still wondering about whether to accept any more powers being given to the EU, they should consider how Ireland would have coped with the crisis that hit its financial sector if it had not been a member of the Union.

They need look no further than Iceland. Small, rich and constantly ranked as one of the most competitive economies in the world, the island nation went almost bankrupt as the financial crisis wreaked havoc to its financial sector. Iceland, which is likely to be rescued by the International Monetary Fund, with help from Denmark, Sweden and Russia, is now looking to the EU for protection. Both politicians and leaders of civil society are calling for swift EU accession.

Moreover, Sweden and Denmark – EU member states but hitherto sceptical about the euro – are quietly softening towards the single currency. Even UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, long hostile to the EU, seems better disposed towards Europe as he and the eurozone leaders together seek a way out of the crisis.

At last week’s (15-16 October) EU summit in Brussels, Brian Cowen, Ireland’s prime minister, admitted that the financial crisis showed “the critical value” of membership of the EU and the eurozone. He is right. Without the euro, Ireland, which has strong economic and financial ties with the US and the UK – both strongly hit by the crisis – would probably have shared Iceland’s fate.

As the costs of non-EU membership – or of partial membership, in the case of countries which decided to stay out of the eurozone – become clearer by the day, the Irish should reflect soberly on their rejection of the Lisbon treaty.

And their leaders should think twice about requesting substantial opt-outs as a way of reassuring a wary public.

Europe is a famously difficult sell in times of peace and plenty, when voters are less likely to fall for promises of stability and prosperity. But hot on the heels of last summer’s war between Russia and Georgia, with the financial crisis still wreaking havoc on Europe’s economies, the Irish people might yet consider that a stronger Europe is in their interest.

But European politicians must refrain from engaging in scaremongering and finger-pointing and resist the temptation to tell the Irish “we told you so”. Nor should they bully the Irish into a swift, second vote on the Lisbon treaty. Taking advantage of the current climate of fear might seem tempting, but it could yet backfire: populist and nationalist siren calls might prove more attractive in times of crisis. Instead the EU’s politicians should use the changed political and economic climate to reassure the Irish that they will fare much better in a stronger Union.

In a bid to secure ratification of the treaty at a second referendum, Ireland’s leaders will request a series of political declarations, to reassure their citizens on issues such as neutrality, moral questions and abortion. They may also seek opt-outs from certain areas of co-operation – though these opt-outs should not affect Ireland’s capacity to influence decisions at EU level, making it a second-class member.

As is often the case with referenda on EU treaties, the problem with the Lisbon treaty in Ireland was not so much the text, but rather the context. The financial crisis has changed the political and economic context in Ireland, as in Europe. Politicians, in Ireland and elsewhere, must take advantage of the new context to make the case for a stronger EU, instead of resurrecting the old reflex of blaming Europe and globalisation for what goes wrong and taking the credit for finding a solution.